Dear Wakas,
As salaam alaikum,
With a view to briefly attempt responding to what appears to be your main arguments against the general position that takes '
dhibh' to mean '
sacrifice/ slaughter,' see my short responses below to your contentions 3 to 9 in
blue as requested in the link shared
[1] as a minimum.
You contend:
"
3) The future particle "sa" occurs over 100 times in Quran. Can you provide one example of usage which matches how you claim it is used here, i.e. what comes after particle "sa" refers to an ongoing future activity that occurs prior to what came before particle "sa"?
Let me clarify, here is structure of the Arabic: ABC <future particle sa> XYZ
My view is XYZ occurs in the future, i.e. after ABC.Your view is XYZ occurs prior to ABC or XYZ occurs until ABC takes place.”
In my view, I don’t find the need to raise concerns over the particle ‘
sa’ nor consider such an analogy which I respectfully find incongruent. The particle ‘
sa’ simply asserts the ‘
sabr’ which Prophet Ibrahim’s (pbuh) son (pbuh) promises to exercise ‘
once’ met with the ‘
dhibh.’ Relative to the time he was uttering that speech, the expected ‘
dhibh' and in fact the attempted one in 37:103 was ‘
yet to be actioned’ hence a ‘
future’ (
sa) incident. So was the ‘
sabr’ he promises to endure which is contextually linked to the assumed ‘
amr’ from God - ‘
dhibh.’ Hence, I find the illustration “
ABC <future particle sa> XYZ” in this case without warrant.
"
4) can you provide a Classical Arabic dictionary reference which states the meaning of the verb TaLLa can mean what you take it to mean and can be done in a gentle/soft/willing manner? i.e. without force.
Reason: the primary meaning of this definition is to throw down / make one prostrate / hold down / wrestle them down etc but Quran states both submitted so the action was willingly, i.e. no force needed."
It is the same verse 37:103 which uses both terms ‘
aslama’ and ‘
watallahu’ hence I don’t see your contention as raised against those who posit the meaning of ‘
aslama’ to be '
a submissive decision' to the ‘
dhibh.’ Rather, you appear to contend with the Qur’an itself as to why it suggests ‘
submissiveness’ by using the term ‘
aslama’ then use a seemingly ‘
coercive’ term ‘
watallahu.’ Would you kindly please clarify.
"
5) can you provide an example elsewhere in Quran in which God rewards us/someone for what they were about to do but did not do.
Reason: stating "like thus We reward..." [37:105, 110] implies an exemplar, if so, where are the other examples, or where such a principle is mentioned.”
From my perspective, I would not pronounce it a clear cut ‘
did not do’ instance especially from the point of view of God who holds accountable the intentions at heart (2:225) and focuses on the ‘
taqwa’ in such intentions/ acts (22:37). In this case, the act was intended for God and in fact understood as a command from Him. It is also to be noted that it is God Himself who intervened the attempted ‘
dhibh’ and thus hypothetically, if not for His intervention, the act would have been carried out. Thus, the ‘
taqwa’ in intention of ‘
dhibh’ for Him and in fact presumably from Him, had to reach Him as always does (22:37). Similarly, ‘
monasticism’ (
ruhbaniyyah) invented for God was rewarded (
ajrahum) to those who were true ‘
believers’ (
amanu) - 57:27. As an ultimatum, it was finally the intent that was arguably rewarded for those 'believers' among them as a fundamental principle in 2:225. The actual ‘
monasticism’ in its due observance was not achieved and yet believers among them were rewarded. Rather, the ‘intent’ and effort to do so mattered (regardless if the actual '
monasticism' was achieved) as did in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) in 37:103 as regards the sacrifice. It should however be noted that the 'monasticism' was not done as a command nor an assumed command from God but simply in the spirit of pleasing God - and voluntarily.
"
6) can you provide another example in Quran wherein it states someone did X (e.g. perfect verb) but what is meant is they intended to do X.
Reason: you take "...when they both had submitted..." in 37:103 as submitted in intention only (i.e. not actually done the slaughter). Similar case with "...Surely you have believed/confirmed..." in 37:105, i.e. technically he hasn't confirmed it yet, i.e. it is intention only.
Note: perfect verbs are used thousands of times in Quran."
Respectfully, I find the comparison between perfect verbs of 37:103 and 37:105 to be made without warrant. In context, I find it odd that one expects the '
aslama' in 37:103 to be translated as '
submitted in the sense of having carried out the sacrifice' while the next phrase '
and he laid his forehead down' depicts an act that precedes the actual '
slaughter' action. In line with your view, it becomes superfluous that after the '
slaughter' (
aslama) strangely followed by such an act to '
lay ones forehead down' ready for the sacrifice (
again) that God confirms the
same act at that point in time (
qad swadaqta). It even worsens when He intervenes for '
fidya' while the '
sacrifice has already been carried out' (
aslama).
"
7) preposition "li" occurs over 2000 times in Quran. Please provide clear examples of it meaning "upon" as you take it to mean in 37:103 (i.e. upon his forehead)."
The '
li' in '
lil jabeen' (37:103) takes the function of the particle '
ala' that is '
on/ upon' as it does in '
lil adhqani' (17:109).
"
...laid him prostrate (watallahu) upon his forehead (lil jabeen)" [Qur'an, As-Swaffat 37:103]
"
And they fall (wayakhirruna) upon their chins (lil adhqani) weeping..." [Qur'an, Al-Isra 17:109]
"
8.) please explain why Quran describes the sacrifice/dhibhin in 37:107 as great/mighty/azeem?"
In my view, I don't consider the term '
dhibh' in 37:107 to refer to an alternative one in ransom. However, with such an understanding of an alternative ransom, it can simply be argued that given such a great '
evident trial' (
balaul mubeen) that the '
ransom' (
fidya) that replaces it is spiritually held in greatness (
adhwim) regardless of its material value.
"
9) If you consider killing of an innocent child an evil act and you consider God was simply testing Abraham but was always going to stop him before he actually did it, is there any other example similar to this in Quran (i.e. God commanding or condoning an evil act)? "
Respectfully, I would personally not refer to it as an act of God simply '
condoning an evil act' per se. Rather, I would relate to the fact that exercised volition among humans is a great virtue that is however under God's control. It is ultimately Him who determines the point at which to intervene. See the example of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) in 12:23-24 where God intervenes at the verge of Prophet Yusuf (pbuh) being given into his master's seductive wife (12:24).
I hope that gives some perspective God willing.
Regards,
Athman.
REFERENCE:
[1]. Follow up to: Does The Quran say God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Abraham-Sacrifice-Questions.html